1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates, generally, to space frames. More specifically, it relates to space frames that have the ability to controllably and stably morph between at least two (2) shapes or sizes.
2. Brief Description of the Prior Art
A compliant mechanism is a flexible mechanism that derives some or all its motion (mobility) from the deflection of flexible segments, thereby replacing the need for mechanical joints. It transfers an input force or displacement from one point to another through elastic body deformation. The absence or reduction of mechanical joints impacts both performance and cost. Advantages include reduced friction and wear, increased reliability and precision, and decreased maintenance and weight [Howell, L. L., 2001, “Compliant Mechanisms”, Wiley, New York, ISBN 978-0471384786]. Moreover, cost is also affected by reduced assembly time and, in most cases, due to its hingeless design, the fabrication of such mechanisms can be produced from a single piece. Additionally, compliant mechanisms provide the designer with an effective way to achieve mechanical stability.
A compliant bistable mechanism achieves its stability within the designed range of motion, by storing and releasing strain energy in its compliant segments [Hoetmer, Karin, Herder, Just L and Kim, Charles. “A Building Block Approach for the Design of Statically Balanced Compliant Mechanisms”. International Design Engineering Technical Conference San Diego, Calif., USA, 2009. Vols. DETC2009 87451]. Such a technique enables the mechanism to stay at its two stable positions without the need of an external power/force to stay there. Energy methods, combined with pseudo-rigid-body models, can be used to analyze such compliant mechanisms [Howell, L. L., Midha A., and Norton, T. W., 1996, “Evaluation of Equivalent Spring Stiffness for Use in a Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model of Large-Deflection Compliant Mechanisms,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 118(1):126-131].
These mechanisms are most commonly designed in two ways. One is using pseudo-rigid-body models, and the other is using topology optimization. Both approaches have utility. The design of the compliant portion of the unit cell components is accomplished through compliant mechanism synthesis.
There are three major approaches to the design and synthesis of compliant mechanisms: kinematic approximation methods, computationally intense methods, and linear and higher-order expansions of the governing equations. This disclosure is based primarily upon kinematic approximation methods.
The kinematic approximation or Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) approach works by identifying similarities between compliant mechanisms and rigid-body mechanisms. It has proved effective in identifying numerous compliant analogues to ubiquitous planar rigid-body mechanisms such as four-bar and crank-slider mechanisms. The chief criticisms of this approach are that the models are approximate and have limited, albeit known, accuracy. Moreover, the identification between flexure geometries and rigid-body mechanisms has been limited to a small but versatile set of planar configurations.
Computationally intense approaches typically combine finite element analysis with optimization to calculate optimal geometries in response to load and motion specifications. This approach has been successful, but has also been criticized for producing results identical to those produced more quickly by the PRBM approach, or results that are not physically realizable. As a general rule, this approach is more capable and accurate than the PRBM approach, but also more time consuming.
The third approach, which relies on linear and higher-order expansions of the governing equations, is well-known in precision mechanisms research, and relies heavily on flexures that are small and undergo small, nearly linear, deflections. This approach uses flexures much smaller than the overall mechanism size, so it is not generally applicable to millimeter-scale and smaller mechanisms. These techniques are important but do not have a direct bearing on the invention disclosed herein.
Systems for subdividing surfaces in the development of finite element algorithms using node definition and degrees of freedom are known. These same subdivisions schemes are applicable to the design of the novel shape-shifting surfaces disclosed hereinafter. The prior art includes techniques for node placement in a given shape. For example, in Finite Element models, the behavior between nodes is typically determined by interpolating functions. In the multi-stable shape-shifting system disclosed hereinafter, a kinematic scheme is required to fill the gaps between nodes. Thus, kinematic skeletons are developed which have the same number of nodes (typically revolute joints) and the same number of degrees of freedom. Methods for enumerating all possible kinematic linkages with a given number of degrees of freedom are known. The simplest systems satisfying degree of freedom requirements are preferred. For example, triangular elements with additional nodes along the edges and center-point nodes are known.
Tiling systems, periodic and aperiodic, are methods for subdividing surfaces and as such have been extensively studied by mathematicians and artists since antiquity. The three regular tilings are: 1) equilateral triangles only, 2) squares only, and 3) regular hexagons only. There are eight Archimedian tilings, and there are aperiodic Penrose kite-and-dart tiling systems. The regular tilings are simple and require the fewest different types of unit cells. Some of the Archimedian tilings use polygons with several sides, yielding generous angles and areas to work with, which may be advantageous. Penrose tiles are specifically shaped quadrilaterals that can be assembled in multiple, non-periodic ways.
In 1827, Carl Fredrich Gauss published his ‘Theorema Egregium’ which is the foundational result in differential geometry. The basic result is that small triangles do not change their shape when bent and that there is a fundamental difference in the shape of triangles that are planar (the sum of the angles is equal to 180 degrees) and the shape of triangles on a sphere (the sum of the angles is always more than 180 degrees) and the shape of triangles on a hyperbolic or saddle-shaped surface (the sum of the angles is always less than 180 degrees). His result means that spheres cannot be made into planes without crumpling or tearing or stretching (distorting) the surface. This fundamental geometric limitation makes the building of certain types of curved surfaces (those with two non-zero principal curvatures) intrinsically more difficult than working with planar surfaces (both principal curvatures equal to zero) or developable surfaces (one principal curvature equal to zero).
A surface is defined as a material layer constituting such a boundary. Examples of this are walls, ceilings, doors, tables, armor, vehicle bodies, etc. However, in some cases, it may be valuable for these surfaces to change shape while still maintaining rigidity in the direction normal to the surface. In addition, having surfaces able to change between two different sizes on demand and stabilize in those sizes may be of even more value. One valuable application of size changing surfaces may be rigid containers, for example milk crates, trash barrels, dumpsters, laundry baskets, suit cases, truck beds, freight trains, trash compactors, etc. Such containers are designed for large volumes, however, when not in use, may become cumbersome. Thus, containers with large volumes when in use and small volumes when empty are of value. This includes the ability for containers to maintain large or small sizes both when in use and when empty.
This leads to a need for innovation that allows conventional surfaces to achieve new functionality, to be constructed more precisely, or at lower cost. More particularly, a low-cost modular building system with customizable DOF and stiffness with stability in multiple positions is needed. In addition to potential savings when a new barrier is erected, an innovative system would provide new methods and functionality to surfaces and objects.
Objects that function as physical barriers or supporting surfaces include walls, table tops, shelves, floors, ceilings, stairs, vehicle bodies, and pipelines. Conventional methods for constructing these barriers can be costly, but even when they are inexpensive, the numbers of these kinds of objects mean that they represent a significant economic investment. Such barriers often incur additional costs when they require modification or removal. Thus there is a need for a surface, and a method for designing such surface, having a shape that may be modified or adjusted without damaging the surface or rebuilding it, and that has stability in multiple positions or shapes.
Space frames are widely used in structures (roof structure for example) with complex geometries that involve heavy computations and optimization using genetic algorithm. However, there is no current ability to provide bistability to space frames in a predictable and controllable manner.
Accordingly, what is needed is an improved structure and methodology for providing predictable and controllable structural change using unit cell bistable elements, thus allowing the morphing of one specific shape into a different specific shape. However, in view of the art considered as a whole at the time the present invention was made, it was not obvious to those of ordinary skill in the field of this invention how the shortcomings of the prior art could be overcome.
While certain aspects of conventional technologies have been discussed to facilitate disclosure of the invention, Applicants in no way disclaim these technical aspects, and it is contemplated that the claimed invention may encompass one or more of the conventional technical aspects discussed herein.
The present invention may address one or more of the problems and deficiencies of the prior art discussed above. However, it is contemplated that the invention may prove useful in addressing other problems and deficiencies in a number of technical areas. Therefore, the claimed invention should not necessarily be construed as limited to addressing any of the particular problems or deficiencies discussed herein.
In this specification, where a document, act or item of knowledge is referred to or discussed, this reference or discussion is not an admission that the document, act or item of knowledge or any combination thereof was at the priority date, publicly available, known to the public, part of common general knowledge, or otherwise constitutes prior art under the applicable statutory provisions; or is known to be relevant to an attempt to solve any problem with which this specification is concerned.